NO NO NO Schools have to include religion classes, forum told

robindch

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have a feeling you will probably just reply that I do support such a religion, though I wouldn't have thought I do.

Are you not curious?

Mistress 69

BluntGuy wrote: »

Absolutely which is why I stated:





As has been stated numerous times by other posters, the job of a state-funded school is to educate children. It is not their job to reinforce my or anyone else's particular set of beliefs - be they religious, non-religious etc.

As it is simply not pragmatic (and in my opinion not desirable) to have a state-funded school which conforms to the particular ethos, philosophy or beliefs of every single parent in the country, secular education is the most sensible and fair option.

What I think people are asking for is a set of positive, pragmatic, rational reasons from the other side, why the state, and thus taxpayers should pay for schools whose function is to reinforce arbitrary beliefs of certain children's parents. Can you provide some?

I hate to use this old phrase again, but we are where we are etc. We have a demographic in this country which is largely Catholic. I have taken heat for using the CIA website to back up that fact on previous threads, so I will now say those figures are published on the AI website for back up instead.
I imagine the atheist goal to remove religion from all schools using the secular argument is the objective here. Can it be acheived..... in the face of inevitable massive resistance from oceans of parents who are very happy... I doubt it. Anyway it is very likely that the forum will cater for non religous ethos schools in a major way, so why deprive the existance of Catholic ethos schools to anyone. Just by the way, oppostion from Catholics is one thing, how do you think you will fare telling Prodestants that they can no longer have state funded schools....

AudreyHepburn

robindch wrote: »

Are you not curious?

No because I know your reply will be that I do.

I certainly don't think Catholicism involves beheading people.

And re women being in enclosed orders...well women decide to become Nuns for themselves.

philologos

koth wrote: »

and what about the points mentioned in the article I posted about the faith schools increasing segregation and racial tensions?

It's up to you to explain how the British Government got it so awfully wrong then?

koth wrote: »

That the faith schools are more discriminating with regards to admissions, so this artificially inflates ratings in their favour.

Again, also demonstrated to be untrue at least in the Church of England's figures for the whole of the UK.

koth wrote: »

Not to forget that they also teach religious parables as science in some schools.

In a tiny minority and yes the Government should be strict in respect to these. Although I also showed you a link a few pages ago of a teacher in a New York school putting forward the view that religion was fiction in an English class. Secular schooling does not prevent this possibility. What one needs to say is that school authorities need to be vigilant in general.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

Secular schooling does not prevent this possibility. What one needs to say is that school authorities need to be vigilant in general.

The is a HUGE Difference between something is not allowed and something is prevented. Murder is not allowed in a democracy, yet murders happen. What's my point? Well, what on earth was yours?

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

It's up to you to explain how the British Government got it so awfully wrong then?

Because they allowed religious segregation to occur in public schools.

Again, also demonstrated to be untrue at least in the Church of England's figures for the whole of the UK.

Which is contrary to the teachers unions experience and reports from the Department of Education.

In a tiny minority and yes the Government should be strict in respect to these. Although I also showed you a link a few pages ago of a teacher in a New York school putting forward the view that religion was fiction in an English class. Secular schooling does not prevent this possibility. What one needs to say is that school authorities need to be vigilant in general.

You'd put a teacher saying that religion is fiction on a par with teaching creationism in the science class?

philologos

koth wrote: »

Because they allowed religious segregation to occur in public schools.

I'm talking about the Ofsted figures. How come they clearly differ?

koth wrote: »

Which is contrary to the teachers unions experience and reports from the Department of Education.

Provide some links.

koth wrote: »

You'd put a teacher saying that religion is fiction on a par with teaching creationism in the science class?

Yes. Firmly. If I were a parent in a secular school I'd want to find out why that happened. It would also be a reason for me to bringing any child of mine to a different school if it wasn't resolved.

In fact I'd do the same in a faith school in respect to Young Earth Creationism.

pH

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No to both.

It must come down to what is in the best interest of all the people.

And for me that is allowing them freedom to choose.

Fine, but do you not agree that some things people may want to choose shouldn't be provided by the state?

Let's say there's a group of parents somewhere who want a white-only school,or one with no foreigners, then surely you must agree that is wrong, and just because they want it doesn't mean it should happen.

Mistress 69

Malty_T wrote: »

Just two question then :
"IF a majority of people demand something, should they be given that demand?"
"If a minority of people demand something, should they be given that demand?"

Yes or no, will suffice.

Well phrased, especially the alternate advance of Yes or No.
However you know its not that simple. The answer is Yes in both cases and that I imagine will be the conclusion that the forum will reach.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I'm talking about the Ofsted figures. How come they clearly differ?

I don't know, as I don't work for Ofsted. I'm just showing that things aren't as rosy as Ofsted would have us believe.

Provide some links.

Already did. The article from the Economist covered the points that I've made previously.

Yes. Firmly. If I were a parent in a secular school I'd want to find out why that happened. It would also be a reason for me to bringing any child of mine to a different school if it wasn't resolved.

and if it was a discussion on various religions as part of a religion class and the teacher was expressing his own belief as part of the discussion, would you still relocate your child to a different school?

Mistress 69

pH wrote: »

Fine, but do you not agree that some things people may want to choose shouldn't be provided by the state?

Let's say there's a group of parents somewhere who want a white-only school,or one with no foreigners, then surely you must agree that is wrong, and just because they want it doesn't mean it should happen.

We all know that these are illustrative arguments designed to sidetrack people off the central issue and reduce their points to rubbish.

Its very simple: A minority are putting forward a case re schooling in the state. That case is being listened to and rightly so. Whats the problem, do you not trust the forum to arrive at an amicable solution?

philologos

koth wrote: »

I don't know, as I don't work for Ofsted. I'm just showing that things aren't as rosy as Ofsted would have us believe.

So you're accusing Ofsted of bias despite the fact that they are the non-ministerial watchdog that reports to parliament about schools, day care centres and so on in Britain?

The services Ofsted inspects or regulates include: local services, childminding, child day care, children’s centres, children’s social care, Cafcass, state schools, independent schools and teacher training providers, colleges and learning and skills providers in England. It also monitors the work of the Independent Schools Inspectorate. HMI are empowered and required to provide independent advice to the United Kingdom government and parliament on matters of policy and to publish an annual report to parliament on the quality of educational provision in England.

I think I'm going to opt with the independent observers on this one.

koth wrote: »

Already did. The article from the Economist covered the points that I've made previously.

Will trawl back for it later.

koth wrote: »

and if it was a discussion on various religions as part of a religion class and the teacher was expressing his own belief as part of the discussion, would you still relocate your child to a different school?

Not at all. That's how I was educated in school. Other religions weren't somehow anathema to discussion in school. I would definitely consider changing the second a teacher starts strawmanning Hereclitus amongst philosophers to assert an opinion rather than teaching English like they should be doing.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

So you're accusing Ofsted of bias despite the fact that they are the non-ministerial watchdog that reports to parliament about schools, day care centres and so on in Britain?

Nope. I'm just saying I've found three different sources that don't fit with the report, and so I'm trying to discuss it and find where the truth lies.

I think I'm going to opt with the independent observers on this one.

Not surprised tbh as it fits with what you want.

Not at all. That's how I was educated in school. Other religions weren't somehow anathema to discussion in school. I would definitely consider changing the second a teacher starts strawmanning Hereclitus amongst philosophers to assert an opinion rather than teaching English like they should be doing.

Fair enough, but from my experience I don't know anyone who had that experience of a religiously run school. Catholicism was taught as if it was fact, and no mention was given to other religions. In fact, I'd go so far as to say my entire education focused entirely on one religion.

Turtwig

Jakkass if the the school has a protestant ethos then Protestantism is regarded as a fact. If the ethos of the school is Catholic then Catholic is regarded as a fact. However if the school is secular Catholicism, Protestantism etc. are all regarded as beliefs that could be facts.

Mistress 69

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'd say it's more like parents don't want to foot the extra cost of communion and confirmation! They'd rather have me(someone who has no desire to have kids) pay for their unverifiable nonsense. Unfortunately majority rules where rationality should.

You are saying the beliefs held by people for generations are unverifable... ok! are atheist lack of beliefs or whatever way you wish to phrase it any more verifiable?:pac:



Apologies...I am withdrawing the above few lines as they are unecessary and irrelevant to this debate.

Mistress 69

Mistress 69 wrote: »

You are saying the beliefs held by people for generations are unverifable... ok! are atheist lack of beliefs or whatever way you wish to phrase it any more verifiable?:pac:

I really thought we'd come past this with you, Mistress...

liamw

Mistress 69 wrote: »

You are saying the beliefs held by people for generations are unverifable... ok!

Yes, people thought the earth was flat for generations too... Argumentum ad populum.

CerebralCortex

Mistress 69 wrote: »

You are saying the beliefs held by people for generations are unverifable... ok! are atheist lack of beliefs or whatever way you wish to phrase it any more verifiable?:pac:

You have no idea how wrong you are.

Credit to Malty_t.

philologos

koth wrote: »

Nope. I'm just saying I've found three different sources that don't fit with the report, and so I'm trying to discuss it and find where the truth lies.

I don't see any reason to assume that the truth doesn't lie in the hands on inspections that Ofsted have made.

koth wrote: »

Not surprised tbh as it fits with what you want.

Lazy reasoning koth, I could accuse you of the same given that you're ignoring the findings of the most independent analysis of schools there is in Britain.

koth wrote: »

Fair enough, but from my experience I don't know anyone who had that experience of a religiously run school. Catholicism was taught as if it was fact, and no mention was given to other religions. In fact, I'd go so far as to say my entire education focused entirely on one religion.

That's unfortunate but I don't see it as a good argument against faith schooling just against how it is done and indeed an argument against how schools have been distributed in the past which is what I sympathise with you on. I'm saying let's do things differently while maintaining the choice for all parents.

Mistress 69

gvn wrote: »

I really thought we'd come past this with you, Mistress...

You Have..... Lines retracted on original post and apologies made.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I don't see any reason to assume that the truth doesn't lie in the hands on inspections that Ofsted have made.

So you know how they determine that the faith school is better at promoting equality, even though the admissions policy is more discriminatory than non-faith schools?

Lazy reasoning koth, I could accuse you of the same given that you're ignoring the findings of the most independent analysis of schools there is in Britain.

Actually you accused me of being a religion hating atheist. And I'm not ignoring the findings, it just that I'm finding more and more data that disagrees with their findings.

Plus Ofsted don't provide information as to how exactly they rated the schools with regards to equality.

That's unfortunate but I don't see it as a good argument against faith schooling just against how it is done and indeed an argument against how schools have been distributed in the past which is what I sympathise with you on. I'm saying let's do things differently while maintaining the choice for all parents.

It's not a choice for all parents, it's a choice for the majority of the parents. Or the majority of the parents at the point in time the school was opened.

Would you send your child to a muslim school if it was the only school local to you? Where they would be taught that the muslim faith is the one true faith?

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

Lazy reasoning koth, I could accuse you of the same given that you're ignoring the findings of the most independent analysis of schools there is in Britain.

If this is actually what's important for students which is quality and equality in educational access. Why on earth would we model it on the UK? You do realise we rank higher than them? Admittedly not in maths but following them would be a step in the wrong direction.

robindch

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I certainly don't think Catholicism involves beheading people.

Not any more, it doesn't. But that wasn't my point.

You said that people should be allowed to do anything, so long as they can say that it's a religious duty.

Is that really your position?

BluntGuy

Mistress 69 wrote: »

I imagine the atheist goal to remove religion from all schools using the secular argument is the objective here. Can it be acheived..... in the face of inevitable massive resistance from oceans of parents who are very happy... I doubt it.

I don't care how many oceans, seas, rivers, lakes, puddles, streams or other aquatically-quantified measure of parents are "very happy" or may put up opposition, I asked for:

a set of positive, pragmatic, rational reasons... why the state, and thus taxpayers should pay for schools whose function is to reinforce arbitrary beliefs of certain children's parents.

And you provided...

I hate to use this old phrase again, but we are where we are etc. We have a demographic in this country which is largely Catholic.

Of course there are going to be issues with ensuring that this happens. No question. Of course there will be resistance. I acknowledge that, we've already seen it. But can you please provide actual positive reasons for state-funded faith schools beyond stating the obvious facts that they exist and some people might be unhappy if they became secular.

I'll restate my view again:

As it is simply not pragmatic (and in my opinion not desirable) to have a state-funded school which conforms to the particular ethos, philosophy or beliefs of every single parent in the country, secular education is the most sensible and fair option.

Dades

philologos - for shame the question dodging.

Mistress 69 wrote: »

I hate to use this old phrase again, but we are where we are etc. We have a demographic in this country which is largely Catholic.

We are also largely able-bodied. There is of course a small minority of handicapped people, but it would be inconvenient and expensive to provide handicapped access and facilities in all publicly accessible buildings. That would place an unfair burden those of us who pay for those buildings who have no need for such access.

Perhaps 10% of all buildings could be given handicapped access? That would be a fair representation of the demographics. Handicapped people could then travel to the nearest accessible building, or maybe just compromise their integrity by using the nearest inaccessible one.

Seems reasonable, no?

robindch

Dades wrote: »

philologos - for shame the question dodging.

Well, no harm done -- I think everybody can see it.

expectationlost

philologos wrote: »

That's a good article actually:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0624/breaking14.html

but the state shouldn't be responsible if a teacher abuses a kid says ruairi

philologos

What questions haven't I answered in this thread? - If I've answered them I'll show you where I've answered them already. If I haven't I'll admit I haven't.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

If this is actually what's important for students which is quality and equality in educational access. Why on earth would we model it on the UK? You do realise we rank higher than them? Admittedly not in maths but following them would be a step in the wrong direction.

Do you believe that education is worse because of faith schools or for other reasons?

If it's worse because of faith schools one would question as to why Ireland ranks higher with more of them :pac:

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

What questions haven't I answered in this thread? - If I've answered them I'll show you where I've answered them already. If I haven't I'll admit I haven't.



Do you believe that education is worse because of faith schools or for other reasons?

If it's worse because of faith schools one would question as to why Ireland ranks higher with more of them :pac:

I'm led to believe it's just worse where it actually matters, after that I'm speculating.

Mistress 69

In reply to Blunt Guy & Dades

Without researching the exact section and wording, it is in the Constitution that the state shall provide education to children and provide schools with a religous ethos, and that this will be the case unless the people want change.
The ongoing forum is likely is likely to provide that change in an attempt to provide schooling for the children of parents who do not wish to have a religous ethos school system.
However the Two are not mutually exclusive, provision of non religous ethos schools does not mean that the ones with a religous ethos should dissappear. Really where would the fairness be in that.

I am not dodging questions by saying the above. Simply put, and I said this earlier, provision has to be made for everybody. I suppose we could have another Refferendum................Oh no not another ! :pac: